Ducks Unlimited and Habitat

Jeff Reardon

Jeff Reardon

Well-known member
Forgive me for a modest rant.

I listened to DU Executive Director Dale Hall this morning on a long interview on National Public Radio about new Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and conservation priorities for the new administration in DC.

I didn't take exception to much of what Hall had to say, and it was clear he was doing his best to establish a working relationship with Zinke, which will surely be essential for DU's work over the next 4 years.

But I was pretty upset by what I didn't hear, which was anything about protection of habitat. DU's mission statement says it "conserves, restores, and manages wetlands and associated habitats for North America's waterfowl."

Hall had a lot too say about hunting on public lands, and praised Zinke for rescinding rules that banned lead ammo and fishing tackle on federal lands. He also, briefly, mentioned the importance of work with private land owners to manage agricultural lands for waterfowl--a real strength for DU and an important program that needs federal support.

But not a word about managing public lands as habitat for ducks and other wildlife. Most disappointing to me was that Hall did not mention the recent decision to rescind the EPA's "Water of the United States" rule, which would have clarified that the Clean Water Act applied to wetland habitats like those in the Prairie Pothole region. DU was one of many voices in the choir of conservation interests who supported the WOTUS rule during the debate about its adoption. There is great information on their website about the importance of CWA protection of wetland habitats here: http://www.ducks.org/conservation/waterfowl-habitat/the-waters-of-the-united-states

I am truly disappointed that, given a chance to make the case for wetland protection in a high profile interview, Hall chose to say nothing about the need to ensure that a revision of the WOTUS rule still protects important wetlands like the Prairie Pothole region.
 
DU has lost it's way a long long time ago, they are nothing more than glorified fund raising machine that has marginal return on investment. The CWA may need a rework but what was done was far beyond saving the prairie potholes it was a complete overreach of "communist" state. The government needs to stay out of the backyard of private citizens and landowners. The millions spent on this process would of better spent in CRP or things that help the ducks and that are popular with the landowners who have marginal farm lands which can be real duck producers. The Feds need to learn better how to work with landowners than try to dictate what goes on private lands.
Want to raise ducks in the prairie pothole region kill predators, Delta Waterfowl proved it works but where are the rest of the organizations, lost in fund raising and worrying about things that are far from worrying about ducks.
Finally a breathe of fresh air in this Country, at least someone in the family of the White House has actually pulled the trigger on a game bird.
 
'I'd bet a pretty good lawyer could make a case out of the fact' that the Golf-Course-Developer-in-Chief's signing the executive order overturning the 2015 CWA ammendments constitutes a significant conflict of interest, since his corporation stands to benefit significantly from the changes. But then, ACLU, Environmental Defense Fund,and Common Cause lawyers are probably a bit flummoxed regarding which legal challenge to prioritize when dealing with a Chief Executive that is a serial liar!

When I took tenth grade social studies we learned that communism was defined as the working class owning the wealth and production capacity (factories, labs, etc.) of the nation, with that wealth spread equitably among the country's inhabitants. We also learned that socialism, while much like communism, differed principally on the point that wealth generating industries (factories, labs., etc.) were owned by the Government and run for the Public's benefit, with wages paid for their discretionary expenditures. So, Cap'n., I'm at a bit of a loss to scribe a Venn diagram around the set of ne'r-do-wells you and your ilk endlessly maintain held the reins of government for nearly a decade. I guess it's kind of a "deep state" thing...but then, I overcame my 'fear of long-legged beasties and things that go bump in the night' years ago!
 
Capt

Here's a look at what DU is doing is currently doing just in your state. I have never tried the Dropbox links on here so let me know if they work.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/440169870/LL%20Minnesota%20Project%20List%20Feb%202016.pdf

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/440169870/2017%20MN%20DU%20Conservation%20Report.pdf
 
Thank You for that information, does DU publicly provide the amount of dollars raised in State compared to what is spent in that state and also what the cost of raising these funds are. The chapters don't have any issue soliciting me continually for charter trips for banquet prizes.


I realize that some states are donor states, and some probably get a majority due to the habitat in state (ie Dakotas, certain Provinces). The issue I have with them is that they blow off predator control when it is proved that it will increase the survival three times in marginal habitat, what would happen if it was done on good habitat, but god forbid they agree with Delta Waterfowl, someone might donate to the wrong group. Above average snow and rain in Dakotas and north will do more for the ducks that any of these groups, but predator control is not weather dependent.
 
DU has ALWAYS been about habitat. Remove all preditors, and give the ducks no habitat, and you will still have no ducks! Not to say predation isn't a concern... But why does DU have to be the one that do it all? Not to mention that is a part of nature. (Draining wetlands and plowing up soil isn't). So,great...Delta picks up that roll. It is not either or.... There is plenty ty of work to be done. Don't put the two against each other.
 
I can agree there is enough work for both groups. With commodity prices low it would seem perfect time to push for all the CRP $$ that can be found, Farmers should have open ears to getting paid for marginal lands that they have farmed during the boom years. A lot of this marginal land would be good grass and some of it probably is wet enough to be wetlands.
 
I will not make this is political dispute cause it is obvious we will disagree, just remember "elections have consequences" and who said that?
Secondly, when you pay taxes on where you hunt the over reach of government becomes reality.


Back to Ducks - Here is good link https://deltawaterfowl.org/predatormanag\\

It's starting to look like the principle consequence of this last election cycle is establishment of a kleptocracy.

I suspect that the folks in Toledo who lost access to their drinking water source as a consequence of filamentous algae overgrowth in Lake Erie, largely driven by agricultural runoff via poorly timed and over-applied fertilizer usage would disagree with you. Ask Bob Furia how many lakes in Ohio have filamentous algae overgrowth issues and warnings...

The recent study that found human and animal viruses in surface waters in 14% of samples in the Upper Midwest apparently doesn't give you pause, or elevate your background concerns.
Click to expand...
 
What the Delta Waterfowl blurb on predator control opts to leave out is that proportional reductions in the 60-70% range are largely necessary for significant survivorship improvements to occur in a population. Who incurs the cost of this level of predator control on a broad landscape? Remember, you're a smaller government and diminish over-reaching Federal authority proponent!
 
Last edited:
Predator Control:
Last I heard, Delta had decided that Predator Control had the greatest potential / benefit / economic feasibility in areas with wetlands but without much for grassland / nesting potential.

Some things they have not been able to figure out- if Predator Control truly works, and we know that female ducks, for the most part, return to the areas they were hatched, why aren't the townships with long histories of Predator Control overflowing with nesting pairs in the spring?

No one has proven that ducklings hatched in Predator Control blocks make it to flight stage. It's entirely possible that the predation occurs on ducklings instead of eggs. Or any other number of variables.

There are also social issues involving the trappers not appreciating spring time furbearer harvest and the general public approving the killing of one animal to propagate another, for the purpose of providing hunting opportunties.

If predator control was "the answer" it would be accepted and implemented across the breeding grounds. It's not that simple.
 
Other factor is that for-hire predator control is very expensive.
By time you hire a trapper for the season, pay salary, mileage and equipment, you probably looking at $15k+/year if they work just seasonally (late Fall/early winter).
It would probably take hundreds trapper to cover an area like the PPR (if you could find that many trappers) to really make a difference at more than a local level.
Repeat annually.
Now we are talking big $$$$$.
Putting that money in acquisition a/o long term CRP-type leases would probably be a better return on the $$.

Higher fur prices like we had in the early 80's that would get more trappers back in the field would be the answer but I don't see that every happening again.
 
Thank You for that information, does DU publicly provide the amount of dollars raised in State compared to what is spent in that state and also what the cost of raising these funds are. The chapters don't have any issue soliciting me continually for charter trips for banquet prizes.


I realize that some states are donor states, and some probably get a majority due to the habitat in state (ie Dakotas, certain Provinces). The issue I have with them is that they blow off predator control when it is proved that it will increase the survival three times in marginal habitat, what would happen if it was done on good habitat, but god forbid they agree with Delta Waterfowl, someone might donate to the wrong group. Above average snow and rain in Dakotas and north will do more for the ducks that any of these groups, but predator control is not weather dependent.
Click to expand...

They do. If you search for state fact sheets on their website you can find the information. Here is latest one showing 2016 numbers for MN. Nearly 3.6 million was raised and DU has 10.2 million worth of habitat acquisition and enhancement work in MN this year.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/440169870/2017%20MN%20State%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

You can find the national breakdown of costs here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/440169870/National%20Fact%20Sheet%203-17.pdf

Correct there are certainly some states that do not receive as much funding as the next, priority of breeding grounds and wintering grounds based on sound science is where the bulk of the money is invested. The power of waterfowl conservation is that what happens upstream affects everyone downstream.
I don't think there is necessarily a disagreement on predator control but DU has a singleness of purpose mission statement that keeps them focused on habitat work and that is it. There are dozens of great things that happen for conservation but DU has remained committed to habitat work.
MN is a great example of NGO's working together. PF & DU are more times than not at the same table to when it comes to acquisition and restoration projects in Central & SW MN. DU engineers handle the wetland work on PF acquisitions and PF does some grass work on DU's acquisitions.

True a good winter snow and timely rain is key to keeping those seasonal wetlands available for breeding. I think habitat work is all about making sure when those years do happen the ducks can take full advantage of the available habitat.

Jeff-Sorry to kind of steal your thread. I have not had a chance to listen to Dale's interview yet but would offer that when talking about policy related to conservation that is habitat work. Whether we like it or not, I personally don't, the stoke of a pen in Washington can affect millions of acres each year.
 
Jeff-Sorry to kind of steal your thread. I have not had a chance to listen to Dale's interview yet but would offer that when talking about policy related to conservation that is habitat work. Whether we like it or not, I personally don't, the stoke of a pen in Washington can affect millions of acres each year.
Click to expand...

No worries, Andrew--though I certainly didn't mean to stoke the DU vs. Delta fight. There's plenty of work for all to share, and everyone should give where they think best. My conservation dollars will go to local projects, and to national organizations who defend bedrock stewardship like the Clean Water Act. I see CWA jurisdiction over wetlands and headwater streams as essential for fish and wildlife habitat for the future Conserving existing wetlands is a lot cheaper than building new ones to replace what we lose.
 
... With commodity prices low it would seem perfect time to push for all the CRP $$ that can be found, Farmers should have open ears to getting paid for marginal lands that they have farmed during the boom years. A lot of this marginal land would be good grass and some of it probably is wet enough to be wetlands.
Click to expand...

They might, but CRP is all but out of acres right now. It would take an act of Congress to raise the acreage cap. It's been shrinking the last few years down to a target of ~26 mil acres nationwide.

The good news- it will squeeze out all the old fescue/orchardgrass/timothy CRPs that do little to nothing for wildlife. They will hve to upgrade cover types to some of the very best offered to stay in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top